Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Andrew in Colorado on February 13, 2007:

The argument about the Neilsen rating, while valid, misses one major point: Neilsen ratings do not track every single home that watches something; they only track a "representative sample". The only way the churches could appreciably affect the rating is if a large percentage of those who attended were also Neilsen families, with their tracking equipment. If that equipment is silent, that household (and the number of households they represent) would then not be counted. The ratings system is largely antiquated, but most people would consider it an invasion of privacy if networks were able to track who is watching what station at any given time.

Posted by Stephen, Palatine, IL on February 17, 2007:

From the linked copyright law:
"...and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space..."

Looks like you'd better return that 60" Television AND the 6.0 Surround Sound System!

Rev C in Florida says:
"[H]aving Super Bowl parties[...] without permission or the proper licensing is[...] THEFT. Whether or not you get caught is not the point. Doing what is right IS the point."

Respectfully reverend, "legal" is not always synonymous with "moral" or "right". Do you remember a few years back when people were going around with video camera hidden in shopping bags (or shoes) and filming "upskirt" shots and selling them on the Internet (that is, the camera was pointed up the skirts of unknowing women)? There was a news program where they briefly interviewed on of the men doing this. It went swomething like this:

Q: Don't you think its _wrong_ to do this?
A: It's not illegal.

Q: So you don't think it's wrong?
A: It's not illegal.

He was correct. It wasn't illegal at the time, because nobody had ever thought to make a law about it. Flipping the example above, there are a great many things that are illegal that are NOT immoral. The DCMA alone I believe wrongly tramples all over the rights of consumers.

Ray in Luxembourg says:
"[T]he primary purpose of copyright law was, not to protect copyright owners, but to serve public interests. Copyright law wasn't written to protect business interests, but to provide a framework to serve the people."

Excellent point. You beat me to it. Of course, it serves the public by protecting the profit motive to create works that are then protected. The NFL wouldn't exist if there were no profit in it.

John in SC says:
"[T]he Nielsen ratings[...] are how the advertisers cost for commercials is calculated. Fewer people watching translates to less money for the advertisements."

That to me is a flaw in their system, not a moral _or_ legal argument. Ultimately, however, it's also the crux of the moral argument. Since TV is broadcast for free, and the shows make their profits from advertisers, showing it in a really big room makes no difference to profit, (that is, people still see the ads) EXCEPT that the method used for measuring viewership is flawed, and they need to protect the **measurement** of viewership so they can continue to charge advertisers a lot of money for a lot of viewers.

Maybe copyright law should be changed so that anyone who is going to do a large public showing has to simply "register" the showing. Thus their rights to have the parties is there, but the NFL still has its advertising numbers.

Personally I think that if you broadcast something, you don't have the right to dictate how people watch it, but the above seems like a reasonable compromise regarding a reasonable (profit motivated) objection.

Posted by Russell - Idaho on February 19, 2007:

The argument by the NFL seems ridiculous on two fronts. First, how does a ratings system legitimize restrictions on use of publicly broadcast television? Secondly, if the NFL is concerned with ratings, how are they measuring and restricting all the friends of Nielson households who are there watching on game day, and all the Nielson households who choose to visit their friends on game day?

Perhaps the hypocrites aren't as easy to identify in this scenario.

Posted by Paul Grapevine TX on January 11, 2009:

Bars serve beer, churches don't. Budweiser is the largest NFL advertiser. Enough said.